Law and order is best accomplished by professional and dedicated police. This is shown in Britain, and in a number of other nations where hand guns are prohibited. The US has the highest homicide rate of any OECD country, and more than half of those homicides are committed with hand guns. The relationship between free access and tragedy is no coincidence.

I disagree. I think if you remove handguns, people will just use other weapons to kill. There have been concerns about knife wielding teenagers in England. They carry them for protection as well. People will adapt to their environment. You take away knives and everyone now has sturdy walking cane.

I disagree. I think if you remove handguns, people will just use other weapons to kill. There have been concerns about knife wielding teenagers in England. They carry them for protection as well. People will adapt to their environment. You take away knives and everyone now has sturdy walking cane.

The big difference between hand guns and knives or canes is that hand guns usually kill if they are used. Knives or canes usually do not kill. Wound, yes. But it takes a big effort to kill with them. No effort at all with a hand gun.

Witness the difference in homicide rates between the US, home of the hand gun, and any other OECD country, all of which have very little access for civilians to own hand guns. Over half of all homicides in the US use hand guns.

If you remove hand guns, it becomes much harder to kill other people. It also becomes much harder to commit suicide successfully. Most suicide attempts fail. Except hand gun suicide attempts which are 90% successful.

If you remove hand guns, it becomes much harder to kill other people. It also becomes much harder to commit suicide successfully. Most suicide attempts fail. Except hand gun suicide attempts which are 90% successful.

I highly doubt hand guns will be removed, short of revolution in America. It isn't a practical option. The best you can do to teach people to make better decisions with handguns.
I have no issues with people using weapons to responsibly protect themselves, guns, knives, or sticks. It is only natural to defend yourself when you are in an environment superior predators. It is no different than the early hominids using sharpen stones and sticks to fend off lions, tigers, and bears.

As for suicide, you can't stop someone that is determined to kill themselves. Blaming guns for depression or sober decision about an individuals evaluation about their life, makes little sense as blaming bath water because many women choose it as a method of death (e.g. Whitney Houston).

First - removing hand guns. Sadly, I think you are right. it would, of course, be possible to tighten the restrictions without removing hand guns entirely - like making them legal at home under strict conditions (like secure storage) and preventing them being carried in public. But the political will is not there.

Second, on suicides killing themselves.
To the contrary. You can save enormous numbers of lives from foolish suicide by making it more difficult. Researchers have found that most suicides are on impulse - and the impulse lasts no more than one hour. If it is not possible to easily suicide in that hour, the person will survive, and they are unlikely to try again. Removing a hand gun from the home drastically reduces the likelihood of a member of the family killing him/herself.

Firearms are illegal in China. A few years ago a man broke into a police station and killed a number of police officers with a knife (look up Yang Jia).

A couple years ago a number of middle school students were violently attacked and killed at Sichuan University in Chengdu with knives. In Chengdu, if you know where to go you can purchase firearms pretty easily, giving criminals weapons but not civilians (probably just as easy in other cities).

Besides guns and knives you can kill people with just about anything, including your hands. Sure martial artists learn to detect who knows how to handle themselves, but they don't go around beating people up, or killing people. Some people who kill others professionally have legitimate training, and some don't (i.e. military). Point being, not everyone who knows how to kill kills, and not everyone who doesn't know how to kill doesn't kill. People are people, and some people kill people.

I've seen people pull long hair pins out on an airplane before as well, or airports where you can by utility knives after passing the metal detectors. The world is full of deadly weapons.

I've no doubt that a person carrying a gun probably assumes others do too, and in fact they probably often actually notice when others truly are carrying. Being someone who carries large pocket knives and knowing people who carry combat fixed blades I often notice when strangers are carrying knives as well. Just like you would notice people wearing leather boots or driving the same car as you. Not sure why a study needs to be done to prove this kind of thing.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy

Are you kidding? Chicago is loosing more than that to handguns per week!

I agree that the gun/rifle is a more efficient killing weapon. Comparing the numbers of deaths attributed to them isn't fair based on the firearm being a superior weapon of choice.

If you look back before the rifle was the dominate weapon, swords and knives were used in the same manner. When one warring party had a technology advantage (e.g. Native Americans vs Spanish Conquistadors), the ones with the swords harmed "at will" those without only sticks and sharp rock.

Are you kidding? Chicago is loosing more than that to handguns per week!

Well Yeah... Its Chicago... The information is relative however when you consider that firearms are pretty much unavailable in england.

As for knives. A properly trained blade wielder can defeat a police officer armed with a firearm 9 out of 10. I was witness to an exercise involving sherrifs deputies and city police in Missouri USA. In the exercise the officer had their duty weapons loaded with simunition(paint bullets) and my hand to hand instruct would stand twenty feet away with a training knife edged in lipstick. My instructor would charge and quite often make a "kill" before the officers could draw their weapons. In 9 out of 10 runs he delivered a "killshot" and walked away with a wound at the most. Out of 36 participants only 3 actually got a "kill" on him. This is not because he is a highly trained machine, which he is, because I was able to do the 50% kill rate. In my Kali class we have a saying. "If I have a knife I can ALWAYS get a gun."

The martial art is Kali Escrima Arnis, a form of Phillipino stick and blade fighting. We mix that with unarmed combatives and CQB hand to hand.

P.S. MrMojo the native vs conquistador argument should also factor in the armor the spanish wore.

Also, I think it's a difference in distance, in a more psychological way. Like playing chess on the internet vs playing with a real chess board. There's a split second more with a real chess board where you can stop and change your move. It's probably (in my opinion definitely) easier to pop a cap in someone's ass than it is to cut them, provided you have the tools. A lot of people these days can't even cut a dead fish or other animal for natural consumption purposes, yet we have people chasing down wild bears and wolves with machine-gun equipped helicopters, because it's fun. Kinda like playing a video game.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy

The difference is also the unlikely and propostorous examples being used versus what typically happens on the street corner. It's not a knife welding martial artist against an unprepared marginally well trained cop any more than it's a gun at the ready special forces dude against Norman Bates standing in his "mother's kitchen." Knives simply aren't at lethal except in extremely well trained hands at close range or an adreniline junky who hacks 30 times....but than against an entire clip of .38 rounds is pretty lethal as well.

However the main topic regarding armed people seeing everyone else as armed is in error. I am armed. I have a concealed carry permit. I have a Schofield model Smith and Wesson chambered in .45 long colt. I have a Sharps rifle. I also have a .45 Colt Commander (my carry weapon) I also have black powder rifles (1 .50cal, 1 .70cal) I own 3 shotguns. 1 Remington double barrel over-under duck gun, 1 Mossberg 500, and an old double barrel coachgun. Now many of you will look at this and say "wow that is a lot of guns." However I must say that I do not think everyone around me is armed as well. Granted some of them may be but I do not assume such.

guns don't kill people
it's those pesky little bullets that make the holes out of which the blood flows
..........................
suicide has been said to be the ultimate act of a man of action
...........................
suicide is a right, not a privelage
........................
ultimately, a well armed citizenry is the only defense against tyranny
......................
and
no
just cause i got "guns"(actually, rifles, a pistol, and only one gun----a 12 guage)
doesn't mean i'm paranoid, nor do i believe everyone else has weapons...nor, do i actually care
............
weapons
don't belong in the hands of the non introspective........
but
that is a level of tyranical control which would most likely be proposed by the folks who don't belong in control
..............
long ago and far away, while in basic training for the military(your tax dollars at work) we were instructed to hold our m14s in one hand, and something else in the other hand and chant, "this is my rifle and this is my gun, this one's for shooting, and this one's for fun"
.......................
and though i've never looked, i'd guess odds on that my urethra ain't got a rifled barrel
............by now, i'm fairly certain that you know what was in my other hand
...............
and that is what really matters

However the main topic regarding armed people seeing everyone else as armed is in error. I am armed. I have a concealed carry permit. I have a Schofield model Smith and Wesson chambered in .45 long colt. I have a Sharps rifle. I also have a .45 Colt Commander (my carry weapon) I also have black powder rifles (1 .50cal, 1 .70cal) I own 3 shotguns. 1 Remington double barrel over-under duck gun, 1 Mossberg 500, and an old double barrel coachgun. Now many of you will look at this and say "wow that is a lot of guns." However I must say that I do not think everyone around me is armed as well. Granted some of them may be but I do not assume such.

However, you are probably much more aware of those that do carry guns, or savvy to the type of person that might. Correct? More so than your average non-gun holder that is. And the study says that more people report seeing the person carrying a gun. I've no doubt you've thought you've seen a gun in someone's hand but then thinking rationally let that thought go by (if not you, than I'm sure plenty others have). It's like looking at the clouds and creating something meaningful.

And I'm sure the people holding balls see more balls. It's not a spectacular finding.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy

owning and carrying weapons are two very different actions, and should come with very different mindsets and consequent perceptions
........
kinda depends on why one would be carrying a weapon.......call that intent
..............
(related anecdote)
As a lad, I hunted for wild game.
One day, i noticed that as i was walking back with the shotgun unloaded and broken and resting on my shoulder, the woods were alive with birds and bunnies and squirrels and ..., whereas earlier, when i was intent on hunting, the same wood was silent. It seemed that the forest creatures could sense my intent...............
so on a grander scale------------maybe-(unless I'm delusional)---intent matters
following on this, I learned to hunt without intent, and fared well.
........delusional?.or developing an ecology of the mind?
.......................
I suspect that close security forces learn to sense intent, by picking up on visual cues that you or I might miss, or perhaps with the oft spoken of 6th sense.
.......................
can intent be a mirror of the soul? visible to all who would see?

Societal differences cause the problems not the tool. Look at Katrina...Massive looting, armed soldiers/police, theft and anarchy. Look at the tsunami in Japan People standing together for each other, no looting no riots no armed presence.

It seemed that the forest creatures could sense my intent...............

If you mean by that, some kind of mystical understanding, then my answer is a resounding NO!

When I was younger, I hunted with a speargun, for large kingfish. (My biggest landed was 30 kgs - 65 pounds)
I soon learned that if I tracked the fish with the tip of my spear, they would swim off. Prey animals are very sensitive to your behaviour. If you behave like a predator, they will stay away. If you behave in a relaxed and non predatory way, they will come close.

I became very successful in my speargun hunts by pretending to be relaxed and non predatory, while still having my speargun ready to fire.

I think there is a connection between living beings that we cannot see. It is reasonable to speculate about how that might work.

Speculating about "what else could be there" is a path that causes many people to "seek God".

I listened to this CD called "Lucid Living" a couple weeks ago that suggested that our mind and body is just a dream of "changing appearances". Our true nature is "awareness" that connects all people. I am assuming that this "awareness" could connect people to other beings.

Many dogs seem to sense whether a person is kind or dangerous. One explanation is that the dog just sees some "predatory stance" in the bad people. Another explanation is that the dog gets a signal from an existence, or "awareness", that is not obvious.

That is mysticism. This is a science forum. Mystical ideas cannot be measured, and probably do not have any reality. Thus they do not belong on this forum.

So, you are a skeptic-----------but, be skepical of yourself also
You could be wrong
To out of hand dismiss that for which we do not have measurable data as mysticism
may just
be not in the best interest of inquiry
.........................
during the break-up of my 1st marriage, i would travel to florida from wisconsin often
and leave my dog with my uncle
(i never drove slowely in those days)
and yet
my uncle said that my dog would start howling 30 minutes before i got there(that's about when i was 30 miles out)
and yet
it seems
my dog knew i was nearing him..............
.....years later, our current dog which has a closer relationship to my current wife(of 30+ years) will get excited and want to go out to greet her mistress when she is still 10 minutes away from coming home.........
............................................
ever look into the work of Nikola Tesla?
he claimed to have found energy lines in the earth, and by planting rods in the ground along these energy lines, generate electricity
not a lot of electrical energy, but still
..................
and then there was his "broadcast power" commonly assumed to be microwave energy(the equiptment was confiscated and claimed to have been destroyed)-----------------mysticism? something that could not be seen, and remained unmeasured during his lifetime
.............................
science sorts out that which can be measured------------------not that which though unmeasured may still be real
do not let you mind be limited by your available instrumentation
let your instruments be your servants not your master

Your dog story has a very simple explanation. Reinterpretation after the event. Both human perception and human memory are malleable and adjust to suit the belief of the individual.

My usual story is of Honest Joe and his trout. Joe catches a 30 cm (one foot long) trout. He is camping, and cooks and eats it. When he gets home, he tells everyone he caught a 40 cm trout. Five years later his story is of a 50 cm trout. Yet Joe is honest. He is not lying. He is telling it as he remembers it.

We all do this. The more often we recall an event and tell others about it, the more likely the memory is to change and reflect our internal beliefs rather than an external reality.

Stories like your dog story mean absolutely nothing unless you have some kind of double check based on empirical means. In saying this, I am not accusing anyone of lying or of being less than sane. This memory and/or perception adjustment in line with personal beliefs or biases is quite normal, and everyone is prone to some extent to doing it.

It looks like the Martin kid was acting under the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman failed to reveal that he was Neighborhood Watch, Martin stood his ground, and Zimmerman then killed him. Did the Florida legislature ever think that two people on opposite sides might stand their own ground? How do you think gang fights happen? They're standing their ground. Duh!

Why do you say that? Somebody threw the first punch.

I said that because Martin stood his ground, he felt threatened because in his eyes, Zimmerman was stalking him. Florida law says it's okay to use force if you feel threatened. Unfortunately, Zimmerman stood his ground too. He was the aggressor; he caused the encounter. Without Zimmerman, there's only an innocent kid going to the corner store for candy and a soft drink.

There is ample evidence that Zimmerman was thinking/acting strangely because he saw suspicion in Martin's innocent behavior of walking home from the corner store with Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman'd paranoia is clear. In his call to the police, Zimmerman described Martin as a "real suspicious guy" ... "up to no good" ... "on drugs or something" ... "has his hand in his waistband" ... "something's wrong with him" ... "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is" ... "these a**holes, they always get away" ... "sh*t, he's running" ... these "f***ing punks". Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he supposedly "knew" Martin was a criminal, even though there was absolutely no evidence of such behavior.
I wonder, would anyone want Zimmerman as their neighbor (in a gated community or not)?

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

It looks like the Martin kid was acting under the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman failed to reveal that he was Neighborhood Watch, Martin stood his ground, and Zimmerman then killed him. Did the Florida legislature ever think that two people on opposite sides might stand their own ground? How do you think gang fights happen? They're standing their ground. Duh!

Why do you say that? Somebody threw the first punch.

I said that because Martin stood his ground, he felt threatened because in his eyes, Zimmerman was stalking him. Florida law says it's okay to use force if you feel threatened. Unfortunately, Zimmerman stood his ground too. He was the aggressor; he caused the encounter. Without Zimmerman, there's only an innocent kid going to the corner store for candy and a soft drink.

There is ample evidence that Zimmerman was thinking/acting strangely because he saw suspicion in Martin's innocent behavior of walking home from the corner store with Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman'd paranoia is clear. In his call to the police, Zimmerman described Martin as a "real suspicious guy" ... "up to no good" ... "on drugs or something" ... "has his hand in his waistband" ... "something's wrong with him" ... "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is" ... "these a**holes, they always get away" ... "sh*t, he's running" ... these "f***ing punks". Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he supposedly "knew" Martin was a criminal, even though there was absolutely no evidence of such behavior.
I wonder, would anyone want Zimmerman as their neighbor (in a gated community or not)?

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

Pure speculation. I have heard nothing that supports premeditation in this case on anyone's part. If there was evidence of premeditation, Zimmerman would have been charged with that.

What the evidence supports is that:

1. Zimmerman followed the Martin and disobeyed police instruction.
2. Zimmerman compounded his mistake by getting out of his car.
3. Zimmerman was attacked and overcome by Martin who was likely stronger and in better shape than Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman fires once and kills Martin.

Zimmerman should not have disobeyed police instruction and he never should have got out of the car. Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman.

To me the key to this case will be whether there is evidence that Martin was actually bashing Zimmerman's head into the curb. If this is true, then the attack might very well have resulted in brain damage or death to Zimmerman.

It looks like the Martin kid was acting under the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman failed to reveal that he was Neighborhood Watch, Martin stood his ground, and Zimmerman then killed him. Did the Florida legislature ever think that two people on opposite sides might stand their own ground? How do you think gang fights happen? They're standing their ground. Duh!

Why do you say that? Somebody threw the first punch.

I said that because Martin stood his ground, he felt threatened because in his eyes, Zimmerman was stalking him. Florida law says it's okay to use force if you feel threatened. Unfortunately, Zimmerman stood his ground too. He was the aggressor; he caused the encounter. Without Zimmerman, there's only an innocent kid going to the corner store for candy and a soft drink.

There is ample evidence that Zimmerman was thinking/acting strangely because he saw suspicion in Martin's innocent behavior of walking home from the corner store with Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman'd paranoia is clear. In his call to the police, Zimmerman described Martin as a "real suspicious guy" ... "up to no good" ... "on drugs or something" ... "has his hand in his waistband" ... "something's wrong with him" ... "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is" ... "these a**holes, they always get away" ... "sh*t, he's running" ... these "f***ing punks". Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he supposedly "knew" Martin was a criminal, even though there was absolutely no evidence of such behavior.
I wonder, would anyone want Zimmerman as their neighbor (in a gated community or not)?

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

Pure speculation. I have heard nothing that supports premeditation in this case on anyone's part. If there was evidence of premeditation, Zimmerman would have been charged with that.

What the evidence supports is that:

1. Zimmerman followed the Martin and disobeyed police instruction.
2. Zimmerman compounded his mistake by getting out of his car.
3. Zimmerman was attacked and overcome by Martin who was likely stronger and in better shape than Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman fires once and kills Martin.

Zimmerman should not have disobeyed police instruction and he never should have got out of the car. Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman.

To me the key to this case will be whether there is evidence that Martin was actually bashing Zimmerman's head into the curb. If this is true, then the attack might very well have resulted in brain damage or death to Zimmerman.

The premeditation is that Zimmerman was of Neighborhood Watch - meaning he had seen this kid before and Zimmerman knew or believed that he was a criminal. It wouldn't surprise me if Zimmerman provoked the attack so he could claim self defense.

It looks like the Martin kid was acting under the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman failed to reveal that he was Neighborhood Watch, Martin stood his ground, and Zimmerman then killed him. Did the Florida legislature ever think that two people on opposite sides might stand their own ground? How do you think gang fights happen? They're standing their ground. Duh!

Why do you say that? Somebody threw the first punch.

I said that because Martin stood his ground, he felt threatened because in his eyes, Zimmerman was stalking him. Florida law says it's okay to use force if you feel threatened. Unfortunately, Zimmerman stood his ground too. He was the aggressor; he caused the encounter. Without Zimmerman, there's only an innocent kid going to the corner store for candy and a soft drink.

There is ample evidence that Zimmerman was thinking/acting strangely because he saw suspicion in Martin's innocent behavior of walking home from the corner store with Skittles and iced tea. Zimmerman'd paranoia is clear. In his call to the police, Zimmerman described Martin as a "real suspicious guy" ... "up to no good" ... "on drugs or something" ... "has his hand in his waistband" ... "something's wrong with him" ... "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is" ... "these a**holes, they always get away" ... "sh*t, he's running" ... these "f***ing punks". Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he supposedly "knew" Martin was a criminal, even though there was absolutely no evidence of such behavior.
I wonder, would anyone want Zimmerman as their neighbor (in a gated community or not)?

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

Pure speculation. I have heard nothing that supports premeditation in this case on anyone's part. If there was evidence of premeditation, Zimmerman would have been charged with that.

What the evidence supports is that:

1. Zimmerman followed the Martin and disobeyed police instruction.
2. Zimmerman compounded his mistake by getting out of his car.
3. Zimmerman was attacked and overcome by Martin who was likely stronger and in better shape than Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman fires once and kills Martin.

Zimmerman should not have disobeyed police instruction and he never should have got out of the car. Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman.

To me the key to this case will be whether there is evidence that Martin was actually bashing Zimmerman's head into the curb. If this is true, then the attack might very well have resulted in brain damage or death to Zimmerman.

The premeditation is that Zimmerman was of Neighborhood Watch - meaning he had seen this kid before and Zimmerman knew or believed that he was a criminal. It wouldn't surprise me if Zimmerman provoked the attack so he could claim self defense.

There is nothing wrong with neighborhood watch. We have it in my neighborhood and it is encouraged by the police in most areas of the US, although in general police don't want people to carry guns. Also, if Zimmerman was in neighborhood watch, it does not mean that he had seen Martin before. Unless there is testimony of this. I think Martin was wearing a "hoodie" and that is why Zimmerman thought he was a criminal.

Local security is an important crime prevention measure.

If it "does not surprise you" then you have a similar bias to Zimmerman. Zimmerman made a false presumption about Martin. You are making a false presumption about Zimmerman.

Law is similar to science in that it has requirements for evidence to support conclusions. Yet law is different from science in that the rules for judging evidence are different.

To understand a discipline you have to know the rules, and this takes a lot of study.

I am not a lawyer either.

I will say that Zimmerman's case supports the OP in that he likely inferred things about Martin, and his gun ownership probably contributed to this. Whether this is a price society is willing to pay for this freedom is up to the voters.

Most of the "solutions" that have been proposed in this thread involve disarming law abiding citizens and leaving criminals armed.

However, I will say that some of the good information posted here about the risks of guns may positively influence some people to stay away from guns. They are extremely dangerous.

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

That is ridiculous, Barbi. If you want to kill somebody, you do not first call the police, nor do you let your victim bash your head into the concrete first.

However the main topic regarding armed people seeing everyone else as armed is in error. I am armed. I have a concealed carry permit. I have a Schofield model Smith and Wesson chambered in .45 long colt. I have a Sharps rifle. I also have a .45 Colt Commander (my carry weapon) I also have black powder rifles (1 .50cal, 1 .70cal) I own 3 shotguns. 1 Remington double barrel over-under duck gun, 1 Mossberg 500, and an old double barrel coachgun. Now many of you will look at this and say "wow that is a lot of guns." However I must say that I do not think everyone around me is armed as well. Granted some of them may be but I do not assume such.

However, you are probably much more aware of those that do carry guns, or savvy to the type of person that might. Correct? More so than your average non-gun holder that is. And the study says that more people report seeing the person carrying a gun. I've no doubt you've thought you've seen a gun in someone's hand but then thinking rationally let that thought go by (if not you, than I'm sure plenty others have). It's like looking at the clouds and creating something meaningful.

And I'm sure the people holding balls see more balls. It's not a spectacular finding.

While that may be the case it is not simply because I am armed. I have had years of training that allow me to assess threat levels that individuals pose. As for the Zimmerman case have any of you seen the kids original facebook picture and posts before the family edited and deleted them? He posted about being a thug and being "hard". While I think Zimmerman was an idiot for disobeying the orders he was given by the police, I must say that if I came into physical confrontation with someone who posed a real threat to my health and safety, ie pounding my head into the concrete, I would not hesitate to draw and use my weapon. I would also not "try to wound him" If you have to shoot you shoot for center mass of the targets torso. Anything else means you will most likely be injured. Unfortunately there is, to my knowledge, no video of the incident. We have to listen objectively to witness statement and that is the rub. What if they are lying?

Since Zimmerman made himself quite clear that he believed Martin was a criminal, it leads you to believe that Zimmerman had it out to get this kid. By calling the police and saying what he did, it sounds like he was setting the stage for what Zimmerman was planning to do next which was his intention all along to kill that boy. By doing it this way, he appears justified in self defense.

That is ridiculous, Barbi. If you want to kill somebody, you do not first call the police, nor do you let your victim bash your head into the concrete first.

Personally, I think all handguns should not be allowed and only those in law officement should carry them. There is alot of responsibility owning a handgun and I think most people even in a defensive situation would not handle it emotionally if they had to kill someone out of self defense. The U.S. is fast becoming police States where there is plenty of law enforcements to handle these situations.

The policeman who arrived at the scene said:
“I could observe that [Zimmerman’s] back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying [sic] on his back on the ground,” noted Sanford Police Department officer Timothy Smith in the report. “Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”

Zimmerman was reportedly treated by paramedics at the scene before being taken in for questioning by law enforcement.
There was also a photo published of Zimmerman's head with blood streaming down the back.

Personally, I think all handguns should not be allowed and only those in law officement should carry them.

And because you disagree with the gun laws, this causes you to presume that George is guilty?

The U.S. is fast becoming police States where there is plenty of law enforcements to handle these situations.

The police wouldn't have done George much good, if Trayvon had beaten his head in before the police arrived.

Most of the "solutions" that have been proposed in this thread involve disarming law abiding citizens and leaving criminals armed.

You are probably aware that Washington DC has the highest homicide rate in the USA. A few years back, the local authorities banned hand guns. The US Supreme Court overturned the ban. However, it is worth noting that, in this worst of all places, the murder rate dropped 25% in the period before the ban was overturned. As we would expect. A lot of lives were saved by that ban.

The point I am making is that banning hand guns does not affect only law abiding citizens. If it is illegal to own or carry a hand gun, that will cut down on the number of 'bad guys' owning and carrying them also, and the number of murders will drop.

Most of the "solutions" that have been proposed in this thread involve disarming law abiding citizens and leaving criminals armed.

You are probably aware that Washington DC has the highest homicide rate in the USA. A few years back, the local authorities banned hand guns. The US Supreme Court overturned the ban. However, it is worth noting that, in this worst of all places, the murder rate dropped 25% in the period before the ban was overturned. As we would expect. A lot of lives were saved by that ban.

The point I am making is that banning hand guns does not affect only law abiding citizens. If it is illegal to own or carry a hand gun, that will cut down on the number of 'bad guys' owning and carrying them also, and the number of murders will drop.

Most of the "solutions" that have been proposed in this thread involve disarming law abiding citizens and leaving criminals armed.

You are probably aware that Washington DC has the highest homicide rate in the USA. A few years back, the local authorities banned hand guns. The US Supreme Court overturned the ban. However, it is worth noting that, in this worst of all places, the murder rate dropped 25% in the period before the ban was overturned. As we would expect. A lot of lives were saved by that ban.

The point I am making is that banning hand guns does not affect only law abiding citizens. If it is illegal to own or carry a hand gun, that will cut down on the number of 'bad guys' owning and carrying them also, and the number of murders will drop.

"A 1991 study documenting the effectiveness of Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns (this law was recently repealed following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding it unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) found that following the enactment of the ban in 1976, there was a 25% decline in homicides committed with firearms and a 23% decline in suicides committed with firearms within the District of Columbia.56 No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were similar reductions found in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.57"

Most of the "solutions" that have been proposed in this thread involve disarming law abiding citizens and leaving criminals armed.

You are probably aware that Washington DC has the highest homicide rate in the USA. A few years back, the local authorities banned hand guns. The US Supreme Court overturned the ban. However, it is worth noting that, in this worst of all places, the murder rate dropped 25% in the period before the ban was overturned. As we would expect. A lot of lives were saved by that ban.

The point I am making is that banning hand guns does not affect only law abiding citizens. If it is illegal to own or carry a hand gun, that will cut down on the number of 'bad guys' owning and carrying them also, and the number of murders will drop.

You must be skimming the stats. On the Wikipedia link above, Detroit and Baltimore both have much higher murder rates than D.C.

Interestingly, the city I live in had a per capita murder rate about 15% of the rate of D.C. In our state, and in my city in particular, gun ownership and hand gun concealed carry permits are ubiquitous. I suppose if we had laws like D.C., then our town would be like Dodge City.

The high murder rate in Washington is not due to strict gun laws, as I am sure you know already. From the reading I have done on this subject, it appears to be due to a major drug culture. When you got lots of people pushing drugs, they carry guns and are prepared to use them.

Also, the strict gun laws are not so strict any more. The Supreme Court took care of that. I am not sure whether the low youth suicide rate is still low, either. If people are once more permitted to keep hand guns at home, it is predictable that a lot more suicides will be the result.

The high murder rate in Washington is not due to strict gun laws, as I am sure you know already. From the reading I have done on this subject, it appears to be due to a major drug culture. When you got lots of people pushing drugs, they carry guns and are prepared to use them.

Also, the strict gun laws are not so strict any more. The Supreme Court took care of that. I am not sure whether the low youth suicide rate is still low, either. If people are once more permitted to keep hand guns at home, it is predictable that a lot more suicides will be the result.

Arizona is also a major drug culture too being so close to Mexico but we do not have a high murder rate.

I experienced something like that in south west China last year. Never lived in hot weather before, and I discovered that it made the impulse to do just about everything be over. Spent the majority of my time drooling on the cool tile floor.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy

The high murder rate in Washington is not due to strict gun laws, as I am sure you know already. From the reading I have done on this subject, it appears to be due to a major drug culture. When you got lots of people pushing drugs, they carry guns and are prepared to use them.

Also, the strict gun laws are not so strict any more. The Supreme Court took care of that. I am not sure whether the low youth suicide rate is still low, either. If people are once more permitted to keep hand guns at home, it is predictable that a lot more suicides will be the result.

Of course, nothing is ever caused by your pet hypothesis being wrong. Everything must be the result of totally unrelated causes (such as drug dealers operating in a place where they know civilians aren't armed.)

However, if someone tried to blame the USA's overall murder rate on the prevalance of drugs, gangs, and racial tensions instead of guns, you'd go back to suggesting that guns are the cause. Am I right?

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

I disagree. I think if you remove handguns, people will just use other weapons to kill. There have been concerns about knife wielding teenagers in England. They carry them for protection as well. People will adapt to their environment. You take away knives and everyone now has sturdy walking cane.

The big difference between hand guns and knives or canes is that hand guns usually kill if they are used. Knives or canes usually do not kill. Wound, yes. But it takes a big effort to kill with them. No effort at all with a hand gun.

Witness the difference in homicide rates between the US, home of the hand gun, and any other OECD country, all of which have very little access for civilians to own hand guns. Over half of all homicides in the US use hand guns.

If you remove hand guns, it becomes much harder to kill other people. It also becomes much harder to commit suicide successfully. Most suicide attempts fail. Except hand gun suicide attempts which are 90% successful.

I think you did make a good point here. With a gun, your options are either kill or do not kill. There is no reliable option to merely wound, or even deter. (Deterrence all too often becomes ineffective if the other person honestly doesn't believe you'll shoot them..... which is a hard belief to impress upon them by any other means than shooting them.) On the other hand, merely wounding with a knife accomplishes little, and attempting to deter with a knife is just plain silly.

I guess the advantage of having knives over guns, then, is that people will not fall into the naive mistake of believing they can use a knife to deter. In self defense, too many gun owners think they can just point the weapon at their opponent and not have to kill anyone, and so they get overpowered when they ultimately aren't willing to pull the trigger (whereupon their assailant immediately shoots them.) In aggressive use, too many gun wielding thugs think they can just "stick up" the local drug store, or mug someone at gun point, and fail to account for the possibility that their intended victim may attempt to resist (or may be armed as well), leading either to their own death or that of their victim (who they hadn't originally intended to kill, only rob.)

However, I still hate making laws that are intended to account for the naivete or foolishness of individuals, because it's not fair to those who aren't naive or foolish.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

I am not arrogant enough to call anything here "my pet hypothesis". Everything comes from others who are far better educated on this issue than me.

For example : the relationship between hand gun availability and homicide/suicide originally came from a Harvard University paper I was shown. This led me to carry out some checks on the internet to look at the numbers. For any person who respects good science, solid numbers are convincing.

The biggest problem on this issue is that it is so highly politicised that it is sometimes difficult to know which 'data' is reliable and which is not. There are numerous web sites, on both sides of the discussion, which cherry pick their data to try to convince people that their political view is correct.

Deterrence all too often becomes ineffective if the other person honestly doesn't believe you'll shoot them..... which is a hard belief to impress upon them by any other means than shooting them.

That's an opinion Kojak. I've used it successfully for deterrence--neither time was reported because I didn't trust the police not to put me through a huge hassel or worse.

For example : the relationship between hand gun availability and homicide/suicide originally came from a Harvard University paper I was shown.

I think that relationship is pretty solid as well--an is enough to convince me to get rid of them, or at least severely restrict them. For long rifles, I'd accept a much larger homicide/suicide rate because of their use to deter the government if push came to shove.

If you draw a gun on someone who is holding a gun, that is a recipe for someone getting shot. Probably you, since criminals have no hesitation hurting others, and you (if you are a decent human) will probably hesitate.

If the deterrence required is against a person who is not holding a gun, then a gun is not required. I have successfully 'deterred' hoodlums by simply standing up to them and talking in a loud, and authoritative voice.

Either way, it is much better all around if hand guns are not available.

This led me to carry out some checks on the internet to look at the numbers. For any person who respects good science, solid numbers are convincing.

Yes! Although this one wasn't about the availability of handguns, it was about the differences in murder rates in advanced industrial societies. Evidence: Violence | The Equality Trust This graph at least illustrates just how far the USA is out of line with other similar societies, the graph that struck me so forcibly isn't onlne anywhere I can find - so you'll have to borrow or buy the book and look at the violence chapter. It was a comparison of murder rates in Chicago and Ireland. It was done on the usual comparison basis, murders per head of population of ages of men. Unsurprisingly there's always a very strong rise and fall in murder rates as men go through their twenties to their thirties and beyond.

The two graphs were overlaid and the curves were virtually indistinguishable. Then the killer punch. The scales had been changed for the 2 data sets - the rates for Chicago were in fact 30 times the rate for Ireland. 30 times. I've read this book through several times and I still have trouble getting my head around that. It shouldn't be hard given the overall, nationwide, average differences between Ireland, Australia and the USA, check that earlier on-line graph. But I doubt I'll ever really grasp it in the same way I get the horrible differences in violence between, say, South Africa and Australia.

Anyone who thinks that the ready availability of handguns in USA has absolutely no role in these startling differences will need to do some seriously hard work analysing numbers and sociology.

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill"nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke

The USA has managed to improve its terrible record a bit, dropping from over 6 killings per 100,000 people per year down to 4.8 last year. This appears to mainly due to the aging population. Older people are less likely to be violent. There are a number of countries worse than the USA, but they are all third world, relatively undeveloped nations. The US has the highest homicide rate, by a large margin, of all western developed nations.

Though there's an implication from my comments about finding those statistics incomprehensible.

I'm pretty sure that sociologists and psychologists would be unsurprised that our USAnian counterparts are equally unable to comprehend the vast differences in our societies on this issue. We all like to think that how we live and how we think is much the same as other people we recognise as being like us. In my case, a suburbanite in a rich democracy rather than an oppressed peasant under a dictatorship, for example.

However, when it comes to violence in society, I have the great advantage of living in a society that really is pretty standard and representative of other societies like mine. It must be very hard for Americans to fully grasp just how far they are out of the normal range. I find it telling that online conversations like this finish up with many comparing themselves to a developing country like Mexico when more correct comparisons would be with Canada or Australia or the European countries.

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill"nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke

Probably you, since criminals have no hesitation hurting others, and you (if you are a decent human) will probably hesitate.

I disagree. Guns are so common in the US that many people carry them as much to be "cool," to fit into their peer group, or out of some abstract idea that it might become handy even if they have no further intent than to steal someones plasma TV set. Only a very tiny % are actually trained, or have been put in a position to actually HAVE to use their weapon (like me). While there is a raised chance that someone will be killed, in most cases the gun carrying thief faced with the real possibility of getting hurt, runs. This is also why I prefer rifles or shotguns--they are an unmistakable visual threat and most understand those they have them are usually trained in some fashion.

In the one study below the estimate was guns are used to defend or deter crimes between 2 to 2.5 million times a year. That might sound high to people who don't live in the US, or even to those who live in wealthy suburbs that aren't brimming or trained to use guns. It's easy to believe for those from the inner city or rural area where nearly everyone is armed and where there are more trained to use them and understand the risk. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Where guns are carried by so many people, it is inevitable that there will be a lot of situations where claims are made that the guns saved them.

None of that alters the facts.
1. The USA has the highest rate of homicides of any advanced, developed western nation. By far.
2. The USA has the highest rate of successful suicide attempts. Total number of attempts are unexceptional, but what is unusual is the percentage of such attempts that succeed, and result in a dead person. Due entirely to the availability of hand guns.
3. The USA has the highest percentage, by far, of homicides caused by hand guns. More than 50% of all homicides.
4. The highest percentage of other crimes, such as muggings or bank robberies, in which hand guns are involved.
5. Highest percentage of murders of women by male partner, in which a hand gun is the murder weapon.

I could go on.
However, it is pretty damn clear that availability of hand guns is not a blessing.

I enjoy the abbreviated version of the title of this thread(what you see on the side while viewing forums"
and it reads:
"gun holders tend to think"
really, that's good enough for me, and always hoped for

Where guns are carried by so many people, it is inevitable that there will be a lot of situations where claims are made that the guns saved them.

And many more opportunities in which gun holder will be absolutely correct.

My specific point was to your idea that criminals will not hesitate to hurt others---most criminals don't set out to hurt people and most are completely untrained both on how to operate the weapons or psychologically prepared to use them.

I do agree with you about handguns--inaccurate even in expert hands, too transportable to places they don't belong, and nearly useless for what the 2nd amendment was meant for--to deter/overthrow a tyrannical government.

Where guns are carried by so many people, it is inevitable that there will be a lot of situations where claims are made that the guns saved them.

And many more opportunities in which gun holder will be absolutely correct.

My specific point was to your idea that criminals will not hesitate to hurt others---most criminals don't set out to hurt people and most are completely untrained both on how to operate the weapons or psychologically prepared to use them.

I do agree with you about handguns--inaccurate even in expert hands, too transportable to places they don't belong, and nearly useless for what the 2nd amendment was meant for--to deter/overthrow a tyrannical government.

Inaccurate even in expert hands? Excuse me but I can put all 7 rounds from my .45 into a 3 inch group on a combat course where you are firing on the move and firing from various positions and types of cover and I am not even an expert. As for the idea that most criminals don't go out with the intent to hurt someone? Of course they intend to hurt someone even if it is just the emotional harm caused by having your home broken into and your property taken it is traumatic. I do agree that they are easy to get into places they should not be such as sporting events and the like however it is exactly that trait that makes them ideal for combating an oppressive government. Most of the Underground resistance movements in World War 2 armed themselves with pistols most of the time and stockpiled their heavier weapons for raids and such. Perhaps this should be moved over to Politics since that is where the discussion has gone and completely diverged from its initial point.

Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
-Jack London

Here's the real world numbers:
"The average hit rate for NYPD Officers involved in a gunfight between 1998 and 2006 was 18 percent. For every five shots, four bullets missed the intended target and went somewhere else. And that hit rate is consistent with the "normal" hit rate in armed encounters which hasn't changed much for years and years.
The average hit rate for Officers who shot at subjects who did not return fire, was 30 percent. Officers hit their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less. And hit rates fell off sharply to 23 percent at longer ranges.

Also, Officers in gunfights fired 7.6 rounds on average, compared with an average of 3.5 rounds for Officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire. And most Officers have firearms with a capacity of well over 7 rounds, plus extra magazines.

FBI statistics show that life threat incidents happen at very close ranges. Between 1989 and 1998, of the 682 local, state, and federal law-enforcement Officers in the United States who died because of criminal action, nearly 75 percent (509) received fatal wounds while within 10 feet of their assailants. "

--
Now we could argue that the police aren't experts, and I would agree. But they should be and are far more trained than the average Joe 16 year old who's trying to steal a TV, play station or someones car.

As an interesting aside it seems in so many ways police departments are learning lessons the US military learned back in the 1940s, when we made the transition from firing at the types of targets where one could boast about the inches of accuracy, to the more realistic targets under the most crazy and realistic conditions we could safely muster in training. (Unfortunately, the military doesn't revisit SL Marshall's significant research often enough).

nearly useless for what the 2nd amendment was meant for--to deter/overthrow a tyrannical government.

Actually, that was not what the second amendment was about. In 1791, it had a different meaning. The wording was :"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was a period in history when the young American government was afraid of an attack by the much more powerful British government, and the USA had no permanent defense force. They relied upon citizen militias. So the second amendment was to encourage people to own firearms suitable for war, to defend the state.

This was a period in history when the young American government was afraid of an attack by the much more powerful British government

In part certainly....but like many issues the founding father's were not of one mind. Just a few years before, they were THE BRITISH government--and recognized that without things like the 2nd amendment the revolution wouldn't have been possible. In fairness it was a forward looking document to protect the nation from external threats (such as the British) so they wouldn't need aa large standing army as well as to protect people's rights from their own tyrannical government of the future and to secure themselves for personal defense. "Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. " Roger Sherman 1970, Debates in the House of Representatives,

The attitude to gun ownership in the USA has changed over the years, and the Supreme Court decision (about a decade back IIRC...) on guns was based on something different. However, the original 2nd amendment was related to defense of the state. Present day attitudes do not relate to the purpose of that amendment.

The attitude to gun ownership in the USA has changed over the years, and the Supreme Court decision (about a decade back IIRC...) on guns was based on something different. However, the original 2nd amendment was related to defense of the state.

Not exclusively. It was seen as an individual right to protect from the government like all the bill of rights.
Other quotes that assert individual protections from those that shaped those opinions:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." James Madison, 1813

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle, expert in Constitutional law, 1823.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. " Tench Coxe, Delegate for the Constitutional Congress, 1789

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government"Thomas Jefferson

With all due respect while you might not have learned this about American history, an individuals rights to bare arm to protect themselves from anything was very much part of the earliest thinking of America founding--Jefferson's quotes resonate very strongly through our history.

The attitude to gun ownership in the USA has changed over the years, and the Supreme Court decision (about a decade back IIRC...) on guns was based on something different. However, the original 2nd amendment was related to defense of the state. Present day attitudes do not relate to the purpose of that amendment.

The phrase is "FREE STATE" why do you keep leaving out the word "FREE"?

Lynx,
I was unaware of those statistics and I find the lack of accurate training deplorable. I had made the assumption, and mistaken one, that police would receive better training then a private citizen. I am curious as to how the statistics since 2006 stack up Nationally rather than just New York.

Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
-Jack London

ww2 and an army major thought the low hit to shoot ratio needed looking into, so he bagan a decades long exploration of why so many well trained marksmen failed to hit live targets.
After years of study, his conclusion was that socio-psychological conditioning precluded killing other human beings
so the army set out upon an adventure of "breaking down the civilian mind" and rebuilding it as the mind of a killer of men
and the kill to shot ratio increased substantially

in light of those studies,
maybe we're all better off if the cops miss-------alot.